AGEOD Forums

So far I have mastered some basics and won victories in the 68 and 193 scenario. Still, I have serious problems to win decisive battles. I somehow always loose them. Even more, even if losses are equal in numbers, I loose nearly always more elements.

Example: Metellus (reenforced with one more legion) and Pompejus, both activated, stand in defensive posture (blue/yellow) behind a river. Both are well supplied. Sertorius attacks (over the river!), both sides loose 20.000 men, me 20-30 elements, Sertorius 3-4.

Another one: The macedonien gouverneur battles with dakiens (looses, I have no idea why). Both loose 3.000 men - me: 5 elements, enemy 2. And it (mostly) goes this way.

Could anyone explain, HOW to read the detailed battle reports? They do not offer me information, WHY the outcome was so negative. And how do AGEOD-veterans plan their battle? Even against Pontus, I may win, but have tremendous losses in numbers and in elements.

I also do not understand the effect of commanders. WHY ist Sertorius (or Sulla in the war with Marius) so strong? Some generals of mine have similar numbers and good traits. But still they stand no chance.

Another point: If start to fear, that moral may be the most important factor. In my victory with Severus, the enemies moral was about 60 and still falling, main above 100. From there on I won battle after battle, and - surprisingly - had less losses, especially when you count elements. If I am right, everythin is about morale - not good if playing Rome against Sertorius (he cant be stopped at start, climbing in Moral to 110-120, while you fall to 60 or less -> making even battles agains Pontus quite hard in losses).

I'd be very grateful for help, how to prepare battles, which don't cost me half of my army. One more point: I had 100.000 POW, but couldn't sell them. Pirates had sunk most of my trade-ships. Is this the reason? What must be fulfilled to sell POWs?

Thanks anyone!

Morale and discipline....

[color="#FFD700"] One more point: I had 100.000 POW, but couldn't sell them. Pirates had sunk most of my trade-ships. Is this the reason? What must be fulfilled to sell POWs?[/color]

the decisions like selling POWs are not linear. they regenerate only during certain months and under certain circumstances (prerequisites). Its to avoid too much money in game.
Just imagine you would have them selling again and again, the whole map giving you 2k-3- taxes, but slaves 8k-10k income... wouldnt work.

So you loose, if you lack both? Not what I would call a good strategy game, escpecially as you are very limited to increase discipline

For illustration:



Please keep in mind, that in this case I had morale 100, the Optimates 78. Otherwise my army would not have survived, as the analysis shows And I had double number of Roman (red) troops compared to my enemy.



As you can see, the enemy has an alliance with Nike and Fortuna. Seems to me, as if the Optimates start with experienced troops (will try the Optimates next time to verify), which makes em hard to defeat (as long as they keep their stack together). Any help would be appreciated

give you an example, Pompey is lacking both in most battles. Discipline and soon moral, despite it you can play him at least till -45 without dying suddendeath.

your example above is not practical. quite the opposite, it shows how different qualities of troops are depicted between Romans and that balance is base for all the non-Roman factions which need to be even lower in the quality and some troops even only be effective in their home regions

your example shows POP-Romans with a lower quality and the Ad-hoc forces of Socii (orange) with a pretty low quality (measured on Roman standards).
Also you have to remember that Frontage is providing a situation, where not all the troops are running/steamrolling the same Roman unit. So even superior numbers will not help, but war of attrition.
Seeing how many players are able NOT TO LOOSE ITALY in the MS87 scenario but having problems outside, i find it quite balanced

Balanced which way? Out of interest, I tried the Optimates now. Didn't plan, just attacked whoever I found. Sulla, fighting nearly every turn, lost 3-4 elements - in the whole campaign. Didn't need to send him to Itlay, even the legions not commanded by halfgod Sulla smashed the Populares and Pontiens as if I had machine guns... No matter what front, it was a massacre.
No offense against the game, but I'm starting to doubt if it's really a strategy game (as I would call strategy, that is ) At least with Sulla, you need no strategy (playing centurion-difficulty, no doubt it would be more problematic on higher levels). Looking forward to the first AARs, showing nooby-Cfant how to win as Populares or as ROme against Sertorius...
(At all I'm a little disappointed. Just my opinion: Having everythin planned, the better general, better position, fortifications and 2:1 in numbers and having more moral should result in some better results than beeing smashed easily (Populares). And blindly attacking red/red should result in losses (Populares). As it is I have not the feeling I can influence the outcome very much. )

Next patch should improve the battle report title to be more consistent with battle result.

We still working on Battle result and losses.

Regards

Glad to hear that. Maybe then we have no more Schwarzenegger-Sulla and Bruce Sertorius Willis

One thing I noticed in the illustration is that the attacking general is a 2 offense against a 4 defense general. Generals are the most important asset in the stack and it looks like you attacked a general that is twice as good a defender as your general was an attacker. Generals and their attributes seem to influence combat in a great way...After all, this is the time of caesar!

It way just an example of the latest battle before I wrote. I get similar results, even when the enemy has no general at all Especially Sertorius-troops are experts to crush my legions even without any leader...
Well, if I'm the only one with this problem, then the game is innocent and I'm just a little jerk On the other hand, playing the Optimates there was nor worrying about details like generals, terrain or stuff. Maybe others could post their experiences, so we could find out, if I have to imrpove my play (what I have nevertheless ) or if it is some balancing-issue

or if it is some balancing-issue

I wouldn't worry about for now, there's some bugs in battle resolution/reporting. I think things will change in upcoming versions.
This version is kind of fun because you can get crazy victories/losses that alter your whole game and strategy..Makes every turn a gamble

Cfant wrote:It way just an example of the latest battle before I wrote. I get similar results, even when the enemy has no general at all Especially Sertorius-troops are experts to crush my legions even without any leader...
Well, if I'm the only one with this problem, then the game is innocent and I'm just a little jerk On the other hand, playing the Optimates there was nor worrying about details like generals, terrain or stuff. Maybe others could post their experiences, so we could find out, if I have to imrpove my play (what I have nevertheless ) or if it is some balancing-issue

i think its more about the fact that many players here in the forum are playing AGEODs games for years, while casual buyers dont write long texts.

with 4 month training in different beta versions i can get a peace with Optimates in Greece and as POP i can loose Spain, but win Italy, Sicily and the east Adria, thus OPT can only expand more eastwards...

the devs are onto that, customers will be even more happy then ^^

Could you send me this turn, I will explain you if I can. Most probably due to frontage and inferior command ; Octavius is quite a good leader despite average-looking stats - but I cannot see the numbers very well on your pictures.

See here for details on how frontage works.

Thanks for the offer, I will take it next time I suffer a defeat, which I can't explain What do you mean by "good leader despite stats"? WHAT makes a leader a good leader in AJE? (Or did you mean some traits?)

Aristocrat morale has some punch ; +15 cohesion DO make the difference.

Well, Super-Sertorius seems to have this punch, too. Again, no plan - just attacked everything in range. Just played 5 turns in 15 minutes (!) with Sertoirus. Result: All Romans in Spain are dead, Roman moral 80 (last turn it was 60, must have choosen some decisions, must have been expensive ), mine 120. Have to siege Massilia (Spain totally under my reign), then it is won. Rome only won 1-2 skirmishes, but lost all battles - under tremendous losses. I've lost 5 elements so far (always red/red). Rome lost ALL troops in Spain. Some balancing should be done, I agree.

Looking at the pictures, I see you started with 27000 men, in 102 elements. The other guy started with about the same number of men, in 60 elements (if I read the numbers right, it is a bit blurred). That could mean that quite a few of your elements were already understrenght. This disadvantages you in two ways: first an understrenght element takes as much frontage as a full one. This means that you will have the same number of elements, but less men in at the front, actually hacking at the enemy (and getting hacked at). Second disadvantage is that these elements wear out quicker then the full ones. If you have an element of 40 men, and the enemy has one of 100, and both loss 40, your element will be wiped out, while the enemy element will try to disengage with 60 men left.
Conclusion: keep those units at full strnght as much as possible. It is generally better to have one full streght unit then two half strenght ones (unless you have to beat two tiny enemy forces at two places, right now). Buy those replacements (F2) before you buy fancy new legions, no matter how tempting they look. It also saves on upkeep .

Cfant wrote:Well, Super-Sertorius seems to have this punch, too. Again, no plan - just attacked everything in range. Just played 5 turns in 15 minutes (!) with Sertoirus. Result: All Romans in Spain are dead, Roman moral 80 (last turn it was 60, must have choosen some decisions, must have been expensive ), mine 120. Have to siege Massilia (Spain totally under my reign), then it is won. Rome only won 1-2 skirmishes, but lost all battles - under tremendous losses. I've lost 5 elements so far (always red/red). Rome lost ALL troops in Spain. Some balancing should be done, I agree.

Calls for balancing come up against historical play and the flow of the game. A WW2 game that lets the Japanese run wild for a year, or the Germans run wild for a year, looks pretty unbalanced as well and needs fixing since reality was unrealistic.

The ebb and flow of resources and power changes things over time, if that time is allowed to pass. Hard to design for that, so the easy way is pick a more convenient date to represent - like 1942 for WW2. Give up early drama for a balanced scenario.

Sertorius has a local advantage and the chance for a good run early on and must make the most of it, since there is a force pool cap that is felt early on and a long coastline exposed to Roman raids or landings and which gets longer and much more exposed if trying to push to Massalia or beyond with enough force to beat the enemy.